Antonius Block

@literally_chad That's perfect joy assisiproject.com/2018/06/23/sai…

@ModernBoethius A right to not be prevented from teaching error despite no right to teach error?

Because it’s based in human dignity which is inviolable regardless of what the person does. Hence Cain murdered Abel but God prohibited any wine from killing Cain. The language says “immunity” right? Immunity from coercion. It doesn’t say the absolute right to seek error. Just the right to be immune from coercion because of one’s inherent dignity.

Open challenge to my critics who I think I’m modernist or heretical: Please quote or cite any magisterial church teaching that you think I reject and ask me if I do. Actual modernists/heretics don’t accept all the Church’s teachings.

@ModernBoethius If I may, then please reconcile what you just said with 'The right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it' (Dignitatis Humanae, 2)

Error non habet ius. There is no fundamental right for protecting one’s right to teach error. There is a right based in human dignity to be free from civil coercion, that can give ground the freedom of religion or freedom of speech more commonly found today. But that means such right is limited since this is a negative right as opposed to a positive right to error

@politeia10 @nonexpedit Probabilmente gli toglierebbero la potestà genitoriale

@ChevalierBlock @nonexpedit Però ad esempio non vige nessun divieto di alcolici sotto i 3 anni. Certo non possono vendertelo (ma tanto soldi non ne hai), ma se i genitori ti danno la grappa nessuno lo vieta. Così come non è vietato bere in gravidanza.

Divieto di schermo sotto i 3 anni. Ma saranno cazzi dei genitori o no? Fra poco la UE deciderà anche la frequenza del cambio pannolini, a quanti mesi svezzarli e quando insegnare a farla nel vasino. Ma fatevi i cazzi vostri e non rompete i coglioni alle persone.

@Babygravy9 I believe everything except for this being an econ seminar. Sociology, maybe

One of the funniest things I witnessed while I was reading anthropology at Cambridge happened in an economics seminar. The seminar was convened by a female Indian Marxist and Mongolian from the Inner Asia Studies Unit. They were talking about capitalism and of course the female Indian Marxist was saying how evil it is and how it strips people of their dignity and destroys tradition etc etc.—and the Mongolian says, “But it made people in Mongolia so much more polite than they had been under socialism.” The woman looked at him with utter incomprehension for a moment and then burst into tears and basically ran out of the room.

@alessio_menegon @Volonte_C Allora avevo capito bene prima e male dopo. Con palla avanti non mi pare Stones debba cambiare direzione. Per cui vale la mia risposta direi. Comunque non una situazione banale come molti la raccontano

@ChevalierBlock @Volonte_C Dietro Stones ancora più difficile 😆. Per me avanti ce la faceva; per mandarla dietro serviva uno stop orientato subito verso sinistra.

Chi ha giocato a calcio anche solo un anno in tutta la sua miserabile vita sa che non c'è proprio il corridoio di passaggio se non in una microfrazione di secondo, gestione del 2v1 perfetta del centrale inglese

@alessio_menegon @Volonte_C Non avevo capito la immaginassi *dietro* a Stones. Molto difficile non mandare fuori tempo anche Haaland allora. Il punto è che a Stones basta svirgolare mentre Haaland deve controllare a seguire senza perdere velocità

@ChevalierBlock @Volonte_C Anche, però forse facendo così perdeva un tempo di gioco importantissimo. La palla di prima sarebbe servita proprio a questo, non perdere 1 tempo di gioco. Stones avrebbe dovuto cambiare direzione di colpo, e non sarebbe riuscito ad intercettare il passaggio. 1/

@Raffaelee99 @Volonte_C Sì o sterza prima punta il difensore e passa la palla oppure va in profondità e costringe Stones alla scelta

@Volonte_C Ha sbagliato perchè ha pensato solo e soltanto a passargliela, forse aveva paura di tirare col destro o solo perchè era haaland, doveva attaccare la porta e a quel punto il difensore doveva fare una scelta,

@alessio_menegon @Volonte_C Stones era in corsa. Quindi in caso la deve dare forte e profonda. Haaland troppo dietro per quel passaggio. Secondo me doveva sterzare a sinistra puntare Stones e passare a Haaland che nel frattempo è arrivato alla linea del fuorigioco. Comunque giocata non banale

@Volonte_C Quí dai la palla di prima. Un passaggio semplicissimo diagonale.

@TheStaad Shortly after coming back to the faith I was exactly in your position. Naturally skeptical about Vatican II because I had friends in the SSPX network. I remember the relief while reading all the 'critical' V2 documents, which I found great

I admit that I still do not quite know what to make of Vatican II As a newer Catholic, it would be easy for me to jump on the traditionalist bandwagon and condemn it altogether But that would be ego-driven. If already know where that gets me I believe Jesus when He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church So I cling to it, and to Him I don’t like some of what I’ve heard about Vatican II, but I have to believe that if it did strike a blow to the Church (which I am unsure of) that the Church would recover and prevail in God’s perfect time After unsuccessfully trying to run my own life for almost 5 decades, it’s important for me to submit to a power greater than myself, even if I do not understand it all And the Church is just that I trust Jesus, and I submit to His Church

@CMReport Does the Apostolic See think the SSPX is schismatic? Yes. Does it matter what the Apostolic See thinks? Also yes.

Do I think the SSPX is schismatic? No. Does it matter what I think? Also no.

@tradcatboy There is no heresy in the Apostolic See, while there is probably heresy in the ecclesiology of SSPX. There is no sacrilege in a properly celebrated NO Mass, while there is certainly sacrilege in the invalid SSPX sacraments

@ChevalierBlock Do not defend heresy and sacrilege

I am not SSPX. I’ve been twice(?), during Covid, when it was the only thing open (when my parish priests had Covid!) and not to throw stones, but I didn’t really like it. It felt weird and off to me. Their French customs meant nothing to me. I defend them only out of justice!

@PaulinusOfTrier Not AT ALL one of the world's largest priestly organization. It's something like 0.2% of Catholic priests. And it has been teaching for decades that the visible Church is heretic. Not exactly what you expect from a Bishop

Better advice in this one clip than ten-thousand self-help books.

@dgoodmaniii It's more than 99%. Just look at the number of priests, nearly 99.8%. It would be much higher if you count the baptized RCs who don't attend Mass but would go to NO. Something like 99.95% in that case

Whatever your position on SSPX, please stop calling the NO things like "the Mass that feeds 99% of Catholics." Less than 1 in 3 Catholics go to Mass, and the vast majority are active heretics on several important matters. Statistically, it's not "feeding" many Catholics at all.

@Zachspeare 'Nulla salus extra...SSPX' is a ridiculous statement

@RorateCaeli Yep. The SSPX has been damaging the credibility of traditionalism within the Church for decades. Without their schism(s) the regular Bishops would definitely be less skeptical towards the TLM

The problem is that many in Rome think that Benedict was wrong when lifting the excommunications (a position which they think is confirmed by current events), and that ends up contaminating the whole Traditional movement. In Rome, probably no one is happier about the Consecrations than Andrea Grillo...

@tweeterthiel If you promote disobedience using covid as an example you eventually get something like "Taking the Lord's position on the forbidden fruit is the theological equivalent of taking the vax", which sounds like something the snake could've said

Taking the Vaticans position on the sspx is the theological equivalent of taking the covid vaccine. Either you see this or you dont it seems like.